1 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 FIRST STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) MUR 7486

45Committee, Inc. ) 

) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON

More than a year after the Commission declined to find reason to believe in 

this matter, it was suddenly placed on the Commission’s agenda. 1 No indication was 

given concerning the reason for its unannounced appearance, any intentions as to 

motions, or views on the underlying merits. At the executive session of December 2, 

2021, a duplicate reason to believe vote was taken with no discussion of any kind.

I abstained, for two reasons.

First, the statute of limitations in this matter has expired, and despite the 

Office of General Counsel’s efforts to claim perpetual jurisdiction over alleged 

political committees, that is not the law.2 That office’s efforts in this regard, and the 

support received from three of my colleagues, has occurred in the face of clear, 

contrary circuit precedent.3 It is an exercise in government by wishful thinking. 

Second, the Commission had already determined whether there is reason to 

believe when, with a lawful quorum, it failed to find the requisite four votes (or, 

1 Amended Cert. at 1, MUR 7486 (45Comm., Inc.), Aug. 14, 2020.

2 28 U.S.C. § 2642; 52 U.S.C. § 30145(a).

3 Fed. Election Comm’n v. Williams, 104 F.3d 237, 240 (9th Cir. 1996) (“FEC argues that § 2462 does 

not apply to actions for injunctive relief. This assertion runs directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s 

holding in Cope v. Anderson, 331 U.S. 461, 464 (1947)...[B]ecause the claim for injunctive relief is 

connected to the claim for legal relief, the statute of limitations applies to both”).

MUR748600215
2 

indeed, even three) supporting that proposition.4 Even if I disagreed, my predecessor 

had already voted against reason to believe.5 As a matter of policy, efforts to 

“commission shop” by holding a matter open, despite a decision not to proceed with 

enforcement, in the hope that a future slate of commissioners will think differently is 

contrary to any view of fundamental fairness. It prejudices respondents, who are 

entitled to learn that they will not be subject to further proceedings, and 

complainants, who are entitled to learn the outcome of their complaint and to timely 

plan any legal action in response. 

It also exercises a corrosive influence on the work of the Commission itself. 

Obviously, it is a significant burden on staff and a waste of our resources to take a 

matter to its conclusion and then simply try again, more than a year later when 

memories have faded. More importantly, it offers a cynical opportunity for 

gamesmanship, a temptation that, I fear, will be increasingly acted upon by 

commissioners of all parties. Why work diligently on a matter, why prepare thorough 

statements of reasons, why earnestly engage with colleagues, if the eventual votes 

have no meaning and will simply be a dress rehearsal for some future “real” event?

But more fundamentally, the effort to reconsider a reason to believe vote, more 

than a year after the fact, flows from a deeply flawed legal premise. Our enabling 

statute requires four affirmative votes of the commission to proceed with 

enforcement.6 There is no similar requirement to dismiss a matter, as the D.C. Circuit 

explicitly acknowledged just this year,7 nor to take a ministerial action like closing 

the file. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has explicitly acknowledged the existence of 

“‘deadlock dismissals.’”8 That is precisely what occurred here, and the theory that a 

failed reason to believe vote has no effect is simply wrong as a matter of statutory 

construction.

4 Amended Cert. at 1, MUR 7486 (45Comm., Inc.), Aug. 14, 2020.

5 Id. 

6 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). 

7 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 993 F.3d 880, 891 (D.C. Cir. 

2021) (“The statute specifically enumerates matters for which the affirmative vote of four members is 

needed and dismissals are not on this list, which suggests that they are not included under the 

standard construction that expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A decision to initiate enforcement, but 

not to decline enforcement, requires the votes of four commissioners”).

8 Id. at 891 (quoting Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 842 F.2d 436, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).

MUR748600216
3 

We have been warned that the center cannot hold. I am deeply concerned by 

efforts, in this matter and others, to undermine our longstanding procedures and 

engage in creative reinterpretations without statutory sanction. We have a 

responsibility “to see a day behind, a day ahead”9 and to guard against short-term 

tactics that can only lead to an escalating collapse of this agency’s ability to function.

Accordingly, I determined that abstention was preferable to engaging in an 

exercise that, in my view, lacked legal basis and threatened to further harm the 

agency entrusted to our care.

________________________________ _________________________ 

Allen Dickerson Date

Vice Chair

9 Homer (tr. by Robert Fagles), Iliad, Bk. I, loc. 1649 (Penguin Classics, Kindle Ed.).

December 9, 2021

MUR748600217